Duke Woodley v. Powhatan Correctional Center, Virginia Department of Corrections, David L. Williams, 931 F.2d 55, 4th Cir. (1991)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsDuke Woodley v. Powhatan Correctional Center, Virginia Department of Corrections, David L. Williams, 931 F.2d 55, 4th Cir. (1991)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs931 F.
2d 55
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Duke WOODLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Virginia
Department of
Corrections, David L. Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-6295
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 8, 1991.
Decided April 26, 1991.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-28)
Duke Woodley, appellant pro se.
E.D.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Duke Woodley appeals the district court's order denying his motion to reduce
the partial filing fee assessed under Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th
Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982). We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final
orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all
parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to
do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
(1945).
As the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as
to particular claims or parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor is the order
appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292. Finally, the order is not
appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED.
